“A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
antigonejournal.com
“A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#2> even though he seems tacitly to accept its inferiority to Greek literature
I would have said "seems to tacitly accept" instead of "seems tacitly to accept"
I wonder if the author purposely avoids the split infinitive. I've heard Latin enthusiasts like to prescribe that onto English, because it's not grammatical in Latin.
But maybe that's just the author's English. I don't think it's wrong.
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#3> even though he seems tacitly to accept its inferiority to Greek literature I would have said "seems to tacitly accept" instead of "seems tacitly to accept" I wonder if the author purposely avoids the split infinitive. I've heard Latin enthusiasts like to prescribe that onto English, because it's not grammatical in Latin. But maybe that's just the author's English. I don't think it's wrong.
You know its interesting that Greek uses adverbs with infinitives so often its almost impossible to avoid using the split-infinite when translating.
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#4> even though he seems tacitly to accept its inferiority to Greek literature I would have said "seems to tacitly accept" instead of "seems tacitly to accept" I wonder if the author purposely avoids the split infinitive. I've heard Latin enthusiasts like to prescribe that onto English, because it's not grammatical in Latin. But maybe that's just the author's English. I don't think it's wrong.
Yes, I find it very plausible that a spud writing about Latin literature observes that rule.
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#5> even though he seems tacitly to accept its inferiority to Greek literature I would have said "seems to tacitly accept" instead of "seems tacitly to accept" I wonder if the author purposely avoids the split infinitive. I've heard Latin enthusiasts like to prescribe that onto English, because it's not grammatical in Latin. But maybe that's just the author's English. I don't think it's wrong.
[deleted]
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#6> even though he seems tacitly to accept its inferiority to Greek literature I would have said "seems to tacitly accept" instead of "seems tacitly to accept" I wonder if the author purposely avoids the split infinitive. I've heard Latin enthusiasts like to prescribe that onto English, because it's not grammatical in Latin. But maybe that's just the author's English. I don't think it's wrong.
It is not only ungrammatical but impossible to split a Latin infinitive. Latin infinitives are a single word.
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#7We have a fun way to describe mechanical, word for word translations in Spanish. It's called _from lost to the river_, that's the direct translation of _de perdidos al rio_, which is a saying meaning that once you have embarked onto a silly/dangerous/nonsense business you might just as well go through with it. A sort of reverse sunken cost fallacy. Of course, the fun is in that it makes no sense once translated. I find it amusing to sometimes make use of such expressions in public.
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#8> For over a thousand years, nobody has been brought up to speak [Latin] naturally at home
Uh, except Montaigne.
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#9Funnily, and ironically, enough, as a native French speaker, I would never translate "ce ne sont pas mes oignons" (litt. "those are not my onions") as "it's not my cup of tea". To me, it actually means "it's none of my business".
Re: “A Great Ox Stands on My Tongue”: The Pitfalls of Latin Translation
#10> For over a thousand years, nobody has been brought up to speak [Latin] naturally at home Uh, except Montaigne.
> For over a thousand years, nobody has been brought up to speak [Latin] naturally at home
I know it is a very small number of people, and perhaps not Latin as it was spoken in Rome, but I think an argument could be made that Romansh is a direct descendant of Latin still actively spoken today.